Becoming Eastern Orthodox, catholics just approve?

[JamesTheJust]

I just assumed people would know it is a serious thing to leave the Catholic Church, but no one I have encountered seems to think so except for apologetic minded people on sites like this.

I don’t know what the blogger’s doctrinal beefs are. As for my friend, his are that he wouldn’t be condemned for leaving so he might as well leave. He doesn’t like Pope Francis and considers him as a heretic. (HIS WORDS not mine!) He thinks that if Pope Francis is like this, then he should leave the Church bc the Church must have been wrong all along. I tried to tell him that a Pope being a heretic isn’t the issue that should make him leave, but only if the Pope teaches something wrong ex cathedra etc. He wasn’t convinced…

Oh, mainstream media, if only you knew what harm you are doing to the Church!

Your friend is probably relying on secular media for his information on a Pope Francis. This strain of the media loves to twist Pope Francis’ words to make it seem like he’s changing Church doctrine. You should suggest to him some Catholic news sources. They’ll set the record straight.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Besides the CAF rule that says a non-Catholic can’t proselytize Catholics perhaps there should be a rule that a non-Catholic shouldn’t ridicule us for encouraging another Catholic to stay Catholic.

Ridicule?!

All I was saying is that trying to get into a debate with someone who is debating whether they should leave or not the way to go. How is that ridicule?

I have personal experience with this, actually believe it or not. I was a Roman Catholic for many years, and like the OP’s friends not a lukewarm one either.

3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, Militia of the Immaculata, Vice President of my Newman Center. It sure as heck wasn’t an easy decision for me, and it was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do in my life.

I know a little something about “why people leave” because I was one of the guys who left.

Trying to “debunk them” will only cause problems.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Ridicule?!

All I was saying is that trying to get into a debate with someone who is debating whether they should leave or not the way to go. How is that ridicule?

I have personal experience with this, actually believe it or not. I was a Roman Catholic for many years, and like the OP’s friends not a lukewarm one either.

3rd Degree Knight of Columbus, Militia of the Immaculata, Vice President of my Newman Center. It sure as heck wasn’t an easy decision for me, and it was one of the hardest things I have ever had to do in my life.

I know a little something about “why people leave” because I was one of the guys who left.

Trying to “debunk them” will only cause problems.

Due to the way you phrased it, I perceived your response as ridicule. I now understand that that was not your intention.

What would you suggest the OP do to keep her friend in the Catholic Church? If you don’t want to offer advice, that’s understandable, but I’m unsure of what the OP’s best course of action is, since debunking them will only cause problems.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Due to the way you phrased it, I perceived it as ridicule. I now understand that was not your intention.

What would you suggest the OP do to keep her friend in the Catholic Church?

Pray for your friend and love your friend.

Neither encourage or discourage them to leave. Impart upon them the importance of discernment. Tell them to talk to their Latin priest, and read some of the lives of your saints. Be attentive at your Masses. Really dive into the Liturgy. If they are still feeling uncomfortable and stubborn, encourage them to perhaps attend a Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox Church…Pray and Discern.

One should become Orthodox for the right reasons. If it is just a general dissatisfaction that will become apparent quickly enough. Many people come to Orthodoxy seeing us as some sort of refuge from “Modernism” but that isn’t a good reason, and it will make for a bad time.

All the while, be that person’s friend and love them.

Did I mention be that person’s friend and love them?
I admit I can be prickly on this forum, and have gotten polemical at times myself. That is because I can relish a debate like anyone else and my gusto can get the better of my sense (combined with a little snark)

I bear no ill will towards the Latin Church, and it wasn’t some radical traditionalist mentality that caused me to leave (which would quickly cause a flame out and perhaps out and out Apostasy)

I didn’t discern properly when I converted to Catholicism all those years ago. I took all the Polemics on this website and others at face value, and didn’t seriously consider the Orthodox claims. I found the triumphalism of GK Chesterton and his circle to be seductive (he is still a great writer). I became a Catholic, convinced that I had found the Ancient Church. Not long after the chrism dried I began to feel unsettled…but I convinced myself that it was just Satan, and decided to throw myself into everything: Knights of Columbus, Confraternities, Rosary circles, etc etc. I started running away from the doubts and questions that I should have addressed.

Well, it eventually came to a head because I was a miserable person. Going to Confession twice a week for a Sin I had no way to vocalize, had no idea about and didn’t want to know.

One day I just decided that I would reevaluate everything, like many of us “who leave.” This time, I gave Orthodoxy the hearing I should have…and I am where I am today.

I finally realized that I couldn’t leave you guys behind, because I was never one of you to begin with…not really. It is that realization that provided the clean break for me, and so it may be with others.

I post this not to encourage or discourage anyone to leave, but to carefully discern where you are. I am Orthodox. I never was a Latin, not truly.

 

[josie_L]

What I mean is, that the Authority of the Pope is what holds your Ecclesiology together. Take that away and you are left with…well, Orthodoxy.

This is a very simplistic and short-sighted view of our ecclesiology, in other words, you’re wrong in believing that this is all that holds us together. Let me refer you to Emeritus pope Benedict’s book “Called to Communion” which offers a wonderful explanation of our ecclesiology:

"We must now attempt a further step. The rediscovery of the eucharistic character of the Church has led in recent times to a strong emphasis on the principle of the local Church. Orthodox theologians have contrasted the eucharistic ecclesiology of the East, which they hold up as the authentic model of the Church, to the the centralistic ecclesiology of Rome. In every local Church, they maintain, the whole mystery of the Church is present when the Eucharist is celebrated, because Christ is wholly present; there is thus nothing more to be added. Given this premise, the inference is drawn that the idea of a Petrine office is contradictory; it resorts to a worldly pattern of unity that is opposed to the sacramental unity represented in the Church’s eucharistic constitution. Of course, this modern Orthodox eucharistic ecclesiology is not defined in purely “local” terms, since the point from which it is constructed is the bishop, not the place as such. If one considers this fact, it becomes obvious that for the Orthodox tradition the mere celebration of the liturgical act in the given locality does not suffice to constitute the Church, a complementary principle is needed. . . The Church is Eucharist, as we said. This can be translated into the statement that the Church is communion, communion with the whole Body of Christ. . . Whoever receives him in Communion necessarily communicates with all his brothers and sisters who have become members of the one Body. Communio includes the dimension of catholicity by virtue of the range of the mystery of Christ. Communio is catholic, or it simply does not exist at all. . .

that the ancient Church never consisted in a static juxtaposition of local Churches (vertical). Catholicitiy, concretely realized in many forms, belongs to her essence from the very outset. In the apostolic period it is above all the figure of the apostle itself that stands outside the scope of the local principle. The apostle is not the bishop of a community but rather a missionary of the whole Church. The figure of the apostle is the strongest refutation of every purely local conception of the Church. He expresses in his person the Universal; he is her representative, and no local Church can claim him for her alone. Paul carried out this function of unity by means of his letters and a network of messengers. These letters are an exercise of his catholic ministry of unity, which can be accounted for only by the apostle’s authority in the Church universal. If one considers the lists of salutations in the epistles, one can further observe how mobile ancient society was; we meet Paul’s friends now here, now there. For them being a Christian meant belonging to a developing divine convocation that was one and the same wherever they found it. . .

In the apostolic period, the catholic element in the Church’s structure is obvious; the so-called Catholic Epistles likewise extend and confrirm it. One can even say that the ministry concerned with the universal Church enjoys such a clear precedence over local offices that a concrete physiognomy of the latter is still overshadowed in the chief Pauline letters. It must be mentioned that the prophetic rank, invested with an equally supralocal mission, was active alongside the apostles. . . . Only when we have grasped the meaning of this statement can we fully comprehend the import of the formula that the bishops are the successors of the apostles. In the initial phase, their position as bearers of responsibility for the local Churches is clearly subordinate to the catholic authority of the apostles. The fact that in the difficult formative process of the postapostolic Church the place of the apostles was also finally ajudged to them implies that they now assumed a responsibility whose scope transcended the local principle. It means that the catholic and missionary flame must not be extinguished even in this new situation. The Church cannot become a static juxtaposition of essentially self-sufficient local Churches. The Church must remain “apostolic”, that is to say, the dynamism of unity must also mold her structure. The epithet “successor of the apostles” removes the bishop beyond the purely local and makes it his responsibility to ensure that the two dimensions of communio the vertical (local Church) and the horizontal (universal Church) remain undivided.

This is an excerpt I took out of the chapter entitled “Universal Church and Particular Church”.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

This is a very simplistic and short-sighted view of our ecclesiology, in other words, you’re wrong in believing that this is all that holds us together. Let me refer you to Emeritus pope Benedict’s book “Called to Communion” which offers a wonderful explanation of our ecclesiology:

This is an excerpt I took out of the chapter entitled “Universal Church and Particular Church”.

My point is that the Papacy is the central figure that ties it all together. The Papacy and its powers are the key component of your Ecclesiology.

If the Patriarchate of Constantinople were to disappear tomorrow (some cranky folks in our fold would not shed a tear if that were to happen) it would not change our Ecclesiology or how we function. Another Patriarchate would take the Primacy and life would go on.

For the Latin Church, can this be said to be the case?

 

[josie_L]

My point is that the Papacy is the central figure that ties it all together. The Papacy and its powers are the key component of your Ecclesiology.

If the Patriarchate of Constantinople were to disappear tomorrow (some cranky folks in our fold would not shed a tear if that were to happen) it would not change our Ecclesiology or how we function. Another Patriarchate would take the Primacy and life would go on.

For the Latin Church, can this be said to be the case?

The papacy is the most visible feature of a very visible institution, but it is not the only thing which holds Catholics together, that being said, we are in communion with each other but our point of reference is communion with the See of Peter. Pope Boniface I (418-422) wrote to the bishops of Thessaly:

“It is therefore certain that this Church [the Roman see] is to the Churches throughout the world as the head to its members. If anyone cut himself off from this Church, not being in union with her, he is outside the Christian religion.”

Moreover, the papacy cannot disappear as it was institutionalized by Christ, in other words, the rock upon which this Church was built will not falter against the gates of Hell. In other words, I trust in the promises that Jesus made vis a vis his Church.

 

[josie_L]

I just assumed people would know it is a serious thing to leave the Catholic Church, but no one I have encountered seems to think so except for apologetic minded people on sites like this.

I don’t know what the blogger’s doctrinal beefs are. As for my friend, his are that he wouldn’t be condemned for leaving so he might as well leave. He doesn’t like Pope Francis and considers him as a heretic. (HIS WORDS not mine!) He thinks that if Pope Francis is like this, then he should leave the Church bc the Church must have been wrong all along. I tried to tell him that a Pope being a heretic isn’t the issue that should make him leave, but only if the Pope teaches something wrong ex cathedra etc. He wasn’t convinced…

I had a feeling it had something to do with Pope Francis, i.e., he is misconstruing Pope Francis’s words to mean things they were never meant to portray (liberal ideas and such). There’s been a lot of that lately because of how the media is misconstruing Pope Francis’s words. He’s in God’s hands now. Pray for him.

p.s. Just out of curiousity, was he a convert to Catholicism?

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Moreover, the papacy cannot disappear as it was institutionalized by Christ, in other words, the rock upon which this Church was built will not falter against the gates of Hell. In other words, I trust in the promises that Jesus made vis a vis his Church.

You assert that it isn’t the only thing holding you together, and then say that it can’t disappear. Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, not necessarily the Bishop of Rome. St. Peter has many successors.

The Pope is not the Church. If there is no Bishop in Rome that would not mean Satan has won and Jesus is a liar.

I can imagine a Church without the Patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow. In fact, the Moscow Patriarchate disappeared for awhile…but the Russian Church continued and grew despite that.

This is what I mean by my point.

 

[Oren]

I had a feeling it had something to do with Pope Francis, i.e., he is misconstruing Pope Francis’s words to mean things they were never meant to portray (liberal ideas and such). There’s been a lot of that lately because of how the media is misconstruing Pope Francis’s words. He’s in God’s hands now. Pray for him.

p.s. Just out of curiousity, was he a convert to Catholicism?

Yes both my friend and the blogger are converts to Catholicism from protestant backgrounds. I am a convert too but I was raised with no faith.

 

[josie_L]

You assert that it isn’t the only thing holding you together, and then say that it can’t disappear. Christ said that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, not necessarily the Bishop of Rome. St. Peter has many successors.

The Pope is not the Church. If there is no Bishop in Rome that would not mean Satan has won and Jesus is a liar.

I can imagine a Church without the Patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow. In fact, the Moscow Patriarchate disappeared for awhile…but the Russian Church continued and grew despite that.

This is what I mean by my point.

There is no contradiction in what I said, moreover, I don’t believe as you do that St. Peter did not have a specific successor, albeit there were three Petrine sees, there was one which was pre-eminent because it was where Peter died, i.e., Rome. This is where his successors can be found (the Petrine office). And since I believe Peter’s successors to reside in Rome, then they too are the rock of the Church by virtue of their holding his office. Since we have the “rock” upon which the Church is built then the gates of hell shall not prevail against us, i.e., the Catholic Church. Also, in Luke 22 verse 31 Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

I believe this promise to mean that those who hold Peter’s office will not subject the Church to heresy.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

“This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

-Lumen Gentium 14

 

[josie_L]

Yes both my friend and the blogger are converts to Catholicism from protestant backgrounds. I am a convert too but I was raised with no faith.

Have they actually read Pope’s Francis’s speeches or are they in a dither because of what the media is reporting about him? Do they believe that Pope Francis is a liberal on social issues and such?

 

[Oren]

Have they actually read Pope’s Francis’s speeches or are they in a dither because of what the media is reporting about him? Do they believe that Pope Francis is a liberal on social issues and such?

I don’t know about the blogger. My friend believes Pope Francis is a modernist based on what he has actually said. I am not trying to convince him he is not a modernist, but I am simply telling him that even if the Pope was a heretic then, that would not excuse leaving the Church. That is my approach.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

There is no contradiction in what I said, moreover, I don’t believe as you do that St. Peter did not have a specific successor, albeit there were three Petrine sees, there was one which was pre-eminent because it was where Peter died, i.e., Rome. This is where his successors can be found (the Petrine office). And since I believe Peter’s successors to reside in Rome, then they too are the rock of the Church by virtue of their holding his office. Since we have the “rock” upon which the Church is built then the gates of hell shall not prevail against us, i.e., the Catholic Church. Also, in Luke 22 verse 31 Jesus says:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”

I believe this promise to mean that those who hold Peter’s office will not subject the Church to heresy.

And we believe that the Rock is St. Peter’s Confession…and even if it was St. Peter himself, that doesn’t necessarily mean that:

A.) St. Peter’s special authority was passed down (assuming for a minute he had such a Special Authority…he did not preside over the Council of Jeruselem…St. James did. He spoke, and people listened…oh yes. However, that doesn’t mean he was the superior of St. James in his own Jurisdiction.)

Of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Pope didn’t call any of them. You would perhaps argue that his ratification was necessary for the Council’s Ecumenical Status. The Holy Synods and Patriarchates of the East and the Emperor disagree.

Now you may argue that the Eastern Empire’s Emperor as a secular meddler who should have no say…but one should be careful, as the Frankish “Holy Roman” Emperor also claimed influence and power in the politics of the Western Church. Sovereigns even claimed a Veto power of Papal Candidates (as well as conspired to put their own people on the throne), which wasn’t abolished until Pope Pius X’s reign in the early 20th Century.

B.) The Bishop of Rome can claim exclusively to be St. Peter’s Successor. Antioch certainly would have something to say about that.

My point is, that there are two different historical narratives at work here. We view the same events, VERY differently. In the end, it is up to anybody reading these exchanges to make up their own minds. This will be my last post in this thread, as you can have the last word.

Blessed Nativity to everyone!

 

[josie_L]

I don’t know about the blogger. My friend believes Pope Francis is a modernist based on what he has actually said. I am not trying to convince him he is not a modernist, but I am simply telling him that even if the Pope was a heretic then, that would not excuse leaving the Church. That is my approach.

But Pope Francis is not a modernist/liberal, i.e., his views are no different than those of the last two popes. Although, I agree with you that even if a pope were a heretic he could not bind us to such heresies, so it not a reason to leave the Church.

 

[Oren]

But Pope Francis is not a modernist/liberal, i.e., his views are no different than those of the last two popes. Although, I agree with you that even if a pope were a heretic he could not bind us to such heresies, so it not a reason to leave the Church.

He has come to the conclusion that the last two popes were also modernists. So, that really wouldn’t help to say that to him. So, I’m going with this approach that even if they were modernists, then they were still Popes. His grasp on the issues is obviously not the best. He cites Vatican II stating that Eastern Orthodoxy can give salvation to people…it is a quote. So, he says he can become Eastern Orthodox and will be saved. he also thinks that since Vatican II stated that then it means that this ‘new church of vatican II’ itself encourages him to leave it so he should. Those are his opinions about the whole thing.

What he quoted to me was this:

For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect… The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation. It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

I told him this applies to those people who were born into schismatic groups, not those who convert to them…

 

[josie_L]

And we believe that the Rock is St. Peter’s Confession…and even if it was St. Peter himself, that doesn’t necessarily mean that

You cannot separate the confession from the man who confessed it, therefore the Rock is also Peter (primarily so according to the fathers).

A.) St. Peter’s special authority was passed down (assuming for a minute he had such a Special Authority…he did not preside over the Council of Jeruselem…St. James did. He spoke, and people listened…oh yes. However, that doesn’t mean he was the superior of St. James in his own Jurisdiction.)

Wrong!

Of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils, The Pope didn’t call any of them. You would perhaps argue that his ratification was necessary for the Council’s Ecumenical Status. The Holy Synods and Patriarchates of the East and the Emperor disagree.

Wrong, again!

Now you may argue that the Eastern Empire’s Emperor as a secular meddler who should have no say…but one should be careful, as the Frankish “Holy Roman” Emperor also claimed influence and power in the politics of the Western Church. Sovereigns even claimed a Veto power of Papal Candidates (as well as conspired to put their own people on the throne), which wasn’t abolished until Pope Pius X’s reign in the early 20th Century.

Although I’m not sure how “true” these claims are because you seem to be getting a lot of things wrong (I keep thinking of all the Gregorian reforms during the 12th century preventing rulers from meddling in Church affairs), I can assure you that caesaropapism was never so obtrusive as it was in Byzantium.

B.) The Bishop of Rome can claim exclusively to be St. Peter’s Successor. Antioch certainly would have something to say about that.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said that there were three Petrine sees one of which was preeminent because this was the place in which Peter died. Moreover, in no less than an ecumenical council was it stated that the Bishop of Rome held the place of Peter, i.e., he was/is the leader of the Church. It was at the Council of Ephesus.

Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices,(1) ye joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. And since now our mediocrity, after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, has arrived, we ask that ye give order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy Synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination.

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince ( exarkos ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation ( qemelios ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Coelestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

My point is, that there are two different historical narratives at work here. We view the same events, VERY differently. In the end, it is up to anybody reading these exchanges to make up their own minds. This will be my last post in this thread, as you can have the last word.

Blessed Nativity to everyone!

I was going to include another post to answer some of your statements because you’ve mentioned too many things for me to deal with it in one sitting.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said that there were three Petrine sees one of which was preeminent because this was the place in which Peter died. Moreover, in no less than an ecumenical council was it stated that the Bishop of Rome held the place of Peter, i.e., he was/is the leader of the Church. It was at the Council of Ephesus.

Could be read in the letter of Pope Julius to Antioch in regards to Athanasius.

And…

Pope Julius letter is reserved in its entirety in Athanasius Apology against the Arians. The letter was written by Julius in 341-AD pre-dating Athanasius work by 6-years. It is a defense of Athanasius written at the request of Rome’s synod, and was sent to the Bishops of Eusebian party at Antioch. It stands not only as a defense for Athanasius, but as a reproach to the Bishops for their attitude of disrespect for the Council of Nicea and to the see of Rome. Berlin and Leipzig 1935 pp 88-168 Greek translation…

"For if it is entirely as you say, that some offense was committed by those persons, judgment ought not have been made, not as it was but according to the ecclesiastical canon.

It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were Bishops who suffered, and they were not ordinary Church’s which suffered, but were those which the apostles themselves had governed. And above all why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place?

If the any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here (Rome). But now, after they have done as they pleased. they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him.

Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I besech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the Blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you."

Faith of the Early Fathers

At some point the pile of evidence has to at least raise a doubt, but denial is a tough nut to crack.

 

[Contarini]

It was my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments and a valid priesthood, and even venerates some Orthodox saints. Didn’t JPII call the Orthodox Church “the other lung” of the church? If so, then Catholics should be able to convert to Orthodoxy without condemnation since they are just moving to another “lung”.

Do I have that wrong?

Yes, you do. The “other lung” is the Eastern Church. Parts of the Eastern Churches are in communion with Rome–larger parts are not. To move from “West” to “East” is to move from one lung to another. To leave communion with Rome is an act of schism.

I have mixed feelings about Orthodox becoming Catholics, if that doesn’t mean becoming Eastern Catholics. I also have mixed feelings about the segregation of “sui juris” churches within the Catholic Church, so that you can have a Catholic who doesn’t go to the local Catholic parish but drives down the road thirty miles to the “Byzantine” parish. The whole situation is a complicated mess.

But the bottom line surely is that communion with Rome is important. I would love to be Orthodox. But I believe that I need to be in communion with Rome.

Edwin